LT 4254 PSYCHOLINGUISTICS OF READING To what extent does the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
SEMESTER B 2017-2018 LT 4254 PSYCHOLINGUISTICS OF READING To what extent does the language proficiency of the L2 English speakers affect the Pun Processing in Psycholinguistic perspectives? GROUP 4 LAM Wai Kit, Ricky LEE Oi Yee, Michelle
GROUP 4 LAM Wai Kit, Ricky LEE Oi Yee, Michelle MAN Yi Ching, Clarice TSE Ka Fai, Byron WONG Zoi Tung, Natalie
1
2
❖ Puns
➢ The verbal contexts with an existence of intentional exploitation of phonetic processes ➢ Suggest multi-meanings simultaneously (Guidi, 2012)
■ Words containing 2 meanings with 1 being implicit ■ Required ambiguity processings
❖ Types of puns
➢ Homophonic pun, ➢ Homographic pun, ➢ Homonymic pun,
➢
Compound pun
❖ How speakers perceived ambiguous words?
➢
Eye-tracking experiment
❖ How the brain contributes to the response of L2 English speakers in different language proficiency?
➢ EEG test (N400)
3
“Language Awareness and Comprehension through Puns among ESL learners”
Definitions and Key Features of Puns ❖
A pun is a play on words which conducts a humorous effect
➢ (1) By using a word with two or more meanings
➢
(2) By using similar sounding words with different meanings. (Literacy Device)
❖ Puns are verbal contexts, including an intentional exploitation of phonetic processes ❖ To reflect two meanings simultaneously (Guidi, 2012). ❖ Puns rely on the effect on correlating distinct meanings in linguistics form ❖ Aims at achieving and creating diverse structural and lexical means ❖ Puns are mostly based on metaphors ❖ Puns also based on perfect homography / homography (Solska,2012)
➢ Only work in texts in written form ➢ Common in advertisement
4
5
❖ Examined how learner-generated attention to the aspects of language e.g. totality of form, meaning and use generated better comprehension
➢ Low-advanced and High-advanced English second language(ESL) learners ➢ A collaborative participation task involving in understanding the ambiguity of puns
❖ The task deciphering 2 meanings: ➢ Faciliated participants to consider the aspect of language ➢ 35 / 40: successful incidences: ➢ Remaining 5 failed cases: ■ No attention to language occured when scneario 3 happened
6
❖ Learners achieved greater comprehension:
➢ Collaborative dialogues between participants ➢ Metalinguistics awareness
■
With focus on phonological, morphological, syntactical and lexical aspects.
❖ General Increase in Comprehension:
➢ Remarkable understanding in puns when related to the linguistic aspect of the ambiguity ■ Opening dialogues: 28.75% → Follow-up interview: 91.25% ➢ Incapability in understanding puns corresponds to absence of LRE ■ 4 /5 cases ➢ Reasons: ■ Usage of examples of language
◆ Children naturally engage in language play or language development
◆ Deal with ambiguity on a context basis
❖ Eye-movement measurement ➢ Good L2 learners may have more forward sacaades, less fixations ➢ Poor L2 learners may have more fixations, regressions, longer first-pass ❖ EEG Measurements ➢ Good L2 learners may elicit a smaller N400 and a faster brain response
■ Easier in retrieving meanings ■ Less energy required for processing
➢ Poor L2 learners may elicit a larger N400 and a slower brain response
■ Harder in retrieving meanings ■ More energy required for processing
7
L2 English learners Response Lower proficiency a longer response time in pun processing Higher proficiency a shorter response time in pun processing
❖ Two stimulus-response experiments.
➢ Eye-tracking test ➢ EEG test
❖ By comparing the results of the above experiments...
➢ It shows how much language proficiency affects one’s understanding of pun.
❖ Target: Student aged 13-17, secondary school, English as L2
➢ Reason: Youngsters will do better than adults in second language learning. (Steinberg, 2001) In terms of: ■ Natural Input, Memory, Induction, Motor skills, Explicative processing
❖ Inviting 60 participants, classified them with a English Proficency Test
➢ First 40%: Group A (High), Mid 30%: Group B (Mid), Bottom 30%: Group C (Low) ➢ Reason: To compare whether language proficiency affects the understanding
8
❖ Time allowed: 30-min ❖ Consists of 10 questions – each of them with a non-pun test word. (No multiple choices) ❖ Test words are designed with reference to semantic network model. (Quillian, 1969) ❖ Test words are all subordinates. Participant will be asked to write down the corresponding superordinate to show their understanding to the word. ❖ 1 point will be given to correct answer. ❖ To answer the questions properly, the participants are required to have certain proficiency in lexical and syntactical comprehension, because a word can be semantically different in various contexts.
9
Question no. Sentences 1 My mother advised me to eat an apple everyday. 2 I forgot to bring an eraser yesterday. 3 Please switch off the mobile phone before coming in. 4 It is time to but a new sofa at our home. 5 I would prefer the yellow t-shirt. 6 Can we wear high heels in the graduation dinner? 7 Dogs and cats are both obedient in characters. 8 I go to school by bus everyday. 9 Orange juice is healthy and tasty. 10 I love playing basketball. 10
❖ tear /teər/ [To damage by splitting] VS tear /tɪər/ [To cry] HOMOGRAPHIC ➢ Orthographically same, different semantically and phonologically 1 Don’t make it tear or I will be mad at you.
11
2 Seven days without laughter make one weak. ❖ weak /wik/ [To be poor physically] VS week /wik/ [A period of 7 days] HOMOPHONIC ➢ Phonologically same, but different semantically and orthographically. 3 I used to be a banker, but I lost interest. ❖ Interest /ɪntərɪst/ [A feeling of being interested] VS Interest /ɪntərɪst/ [An income earned by keeping deposit in a bank] HOMONYMIC ➢ “Interest” of the above are the same phonologically and orthographically, but they are different semantically.
❖ Facts about reading a pun:
➢ Longer processing time means harder understanding of a pun. ■ First fixation: 4 ■ First-pass: 4+5+6 ■ Second-pass: 8
❖ Since “flies” is the problematic word (pun), we expect its fixation time is longer.
3 Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
12
❖ By using Eye-tracker (Harley, 2008)
➢ It can detect pupil and corneal reflection. ➢ It can map the eye movements to eye fixation positions.
❖
Eye-movement map 1:
❖ The above numbers refer to one’s direction of reading a sentence.
➢ During the problematic word (Pun), participant may move backward (regression) to re-analyze “flies”. ■ An indication of misunderstanding of some parts of a text. (Steinberg, 2001)
13
3 Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9) (8) (6) (7) (10) (11)
❖
Eye-movement map 2:
❖ The numbers of the above refer to one’s direction of reading a sentence.
➢ During the problematic word (pun), participant may jump (saccade) the word that is highly predictable. ■ An indication of understanding of some parts of a text. (Steinberg, 2001)
❖ Comparison
➢ Given that Group A, B and C are different in terms of the proficiency in English, ■ Comparing their frequency of...
➢ The results can show whether language proficiency is a factor of pun’s understanding. 3
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
14
Fixation times Regression times Saccade times Group A Lower than B & C Lower than B & C Higher than B & C Group B Higher than A, but lower than C Higher than A, but lower than C Higher than C, but lower than A Group C Higher than A & B Higher than A & B Lower than A & B
❖ Participant with higher English proficiency tends...
➢ To stay in a word shorter. ➢ To jump the words. ➢ Not to move backwards.
❖ Participant with lower English proficiency tends…
➢ To stay in a word longer. ➢ Not to jump the words. ➢ More often to move backwards.
15
❖ EEG → Electroencephalography
➢ A tool to record eletrical signal from the brain
❖
➢ To detect electric signals and therefore analyze brain activity
16
❖ According to Dawson in 1947:
❖ By using EEG, we can retrieve ERP (Event-related Potentials)
➢ An average value after many trials from EEG experiment ➢ Observing one of the compents: N400
❖ N400
➢ A negative evoked response with its peak around 400ms after stimulus onset ➢ Related to Semantics → Word meaning matters
17
❖
Paricipants will read the 3 test materials
➢
Sentence will be placed in middle to avoid excessive eye movement ❖
Electrodes on the scalp record brain signals when reading ❖ After processing and averaging, N400 for analysis
2 Seven days without laughter make one weak.
18
As N400 is an index to show human’s reaction towards words they have read in semantic aspect: ➢
The values can also reflect the time used for giving response/ understanding the meaning of words ➢ Higher → Predictable, Familiar
■ Easy to understand, shorter time
■
Vice versa
➢ Comparison can be made
19
❖ After participants are divided into 3 groups and conducted experiments, we assume that:
Proficiency N400 Level Time Used Group A Highest Lowest Least Group B Middle Middle Average Group C Lowest Highest Most
20
❖ Grouping of participants
➢ What is the standard of the boundary? (40%, 30%, 30%) ➢ May not reflect the real language proficiency (Self-decided classification) ➢ Improvement: ■ Percentage grouping → Linear regression ■ Rank the participants into 11 level/section (Based on the score: 0 to 10) ■ Draw a scatter plot graph to see how the comprehensibility matches the language proficiency of the participants in each level ■ Make the whole comparison and analysis and find out whether our hypothesis is proved.
❖ Length of test materials & Position of target words
➢ Those may vary the final result ➢ Longer sentences may allow more time for comprehension ➢ Front position: No time to understand, Final position: Problem of Recap ➢ Improvement: ■ Almost-the-same length of test materials ■ Almost-the-same position of the target words
21
Recap our hypotheses:
“The language proficiency of the L2 speakers are positively correlated to the response time.”
Experiment: ❖ Eye-tracking Experiment ➢
Understand the difference of puns processing of the participants through the fixation, regression and saccade time
❖ EEG Test
➢ Understand the difference of response times of the puns with the data from N400
22
❖ With the results in our experiment, ❖ Proved whether the language proficiency of the L2 speakers are positively correlated to the response time ❖ Explains the ambiguous understanding of different ads / slogan nowadays ➢ Different language proficiency will take different time to construe the meaning
puns ❖ Further research: ➢ The difference of the L1 and L2 speakers processing puns ➢ The difference between children and adults in pun processing
23
Guidi, A. (2012). Are pun mechanisms universal? A comparative analysis across language families. Humor, 25(3), 339–366. Harley, T.A. (2008) The Psychology of language: from data to theory (3rd ed.) Jackson, D. O. (2001). Key concepts in ELT. Language-related episodes. ELT journal, 55(3), 298-299. Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL learners. Language Awareness, 14(4), 221-238. McHugh, T., & Buchanan, L. (2016). Pun processing from a psycholinguistic perspective: Introducing the Model of Psycholinguistic Hemispheric Incongruity Laughter (M. PHIL). Laterality: Asymmetries
Sheridan, H., Reingold, E. M., & Daneman, M. (2009). Using puns to study contextual influences on lexical ambiguity resolution: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 875–881. Solska, A. (2012). The Relevance-Based Model of Context in Processing Puns. Research in Language,10(4). doi:10.2478/v10015-012-0001-0 Steinberg, D. D. (2001) An Introduction of Psycholinguistics. New York: Longman.
24
25